HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1461

BYRepresentatives Crane, Locke and Holland

Prohibiting diversion agreements with law enforcement agencies.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (9)

      Signed by Representatives Armstrong, Chair; Brough, Hargrove, Lewis, Moyer, Padden, Patrick, Schmidt and Scott.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (8)

      Signed by Representatives Crane, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Belcher, P. King, Locke, Meyers, Wang and Wineberry.

House Staff:Harry Reinert (786-7110)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY JANUARY 28, 1988

BACKGROUND:

A juvenile who is arrested for committing a juvenile offense may be subject to a juvenile court proceeding similar to a criminal trial or have his or her case transferred to a diversion program. The county prosecutor is required to screen all complaints filed and determine if the case is within the jurisdiction of juvenile court and if there is probable cause to believe the juvenile committed the offense.  If the prosecutor determines the case is sufficient and within the court's jurisdiction, the juvenile may either be diverted or an information may be filed.

A diversion agreement is a contract between the juvenile and a diversion unit in which the juvenile agrees to do certain things in lieu of prosecution.  There is no limitation on the entities that may enter into diversion agreements.  Some police departments have established diversion programs.  These programs do not result in the creation of criminal history.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  A law enforcement agency may be a diversion unit.  A law enforcement agency may enter into a diversion agreement only for juveniles with no prior criminal history.  The city attorney must screen the case for sufficiency.  A copy of the criminal charge must be sent to the prosecutor for inclusion in the juvenile criminal history.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill prohibited police diversion.  The substitute bill permits police diversion under some circumstances.

Fiscal Note:      Not Requested.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Pat Carter, Kirkland Diversion Program; Susan Waild, Washington Association of Diversion Units, Alliance of Children, Youth, and Families; Mary Levitt, King County Juvenile Court volunteer; Patricia Brick, King County Juvenile Court; Siona Hodges, Kitsap County Diversion; Sol Gamerand, King County Prosecutor, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Mike Curtis, Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators; Larry Fehr, Washington Council on Crime and Delinquency.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Chuck Mize, John Gerber, City of Bellevue.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Police diversion results in inconsistent treatment of juveniles arrested in different places.  Police diversion places the entire responsibility of the prosecutor, the courts, and law enforcement in the hands of the police.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      Police diversion provides for an efficient way to handle some juvenile offenses.  It also helps to establish a good working relationship between the police and the community.